Dan Tomlinson
MP for Chipping Barnet · Labour · United Kingdom
“I do not think it is the right priority to give a £3.74 million tax cut to someone living in a £10 million mansion, but it is clear that their priority is to give massive tax cuts to people in £10 million homes. We will not take that decision on the Labour side of the House.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That shows, as I think the whole House can agree, that the Opposition simply have not learned from the Liz Truss debacle, which pushed up interest rates and the cost of mortgages for constituents of mine in Chipping Barnet and for people across the country. We will not make the mistake that the Opposition made.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“To fix our economy for the long term, we must ignore the fantasy economics and the unfunded commitments of the Conservatives, which will lead to economic ruin.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Today, the Conservatives have come to the House demanding more unfunded tax cuts, worth up to £11 billion a year, without any clear plan whatsoever for how they would pay for them other than a vague commitment in the motion to cutting public spending.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy for the farmers in his constituency and across the country. Labour Members engaged constructively with me, the then DEFRA Minister and the then Prime Minister on the issue of the threshold in the inheritance tax changes for farms and businesses, and we made a change late last year to refle…”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,146 held · 610 searchable for Dan Tomlinson. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“The hon. Member for North West Norfolk will be glad to know that I plan to make a lengthy speech on this group, because it is particularly important that I set out the points the Government wish to make. I have been engaging in detail with stakeholders on the changes we are making, because it is important that legitimate and good tax advisers see that the Government have confidence in them and the work they are doing. [Carolyn Harris in the Chair ] Clauses 220 to 229 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May 2026. They set out requirements to register, registration conditions, definitions of tax advice and how the process for approval of registration application will work.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The legislation allows HMRC to suspend advisers for 12 months when they have been sanctioned for anti-avoidance infractions, and it allows the suspension of advisers who have been issued with penalties under two information-gathering regimes. Following discussions with stakeholders, the Government have concluded that it is not proportionate to treat non-compliance with these regimes differently from non-compliance with other information-gathering regimes. I therefore commend clauses 220 to 229, schedule 19 and Government amendments 16 to 19, 39 and 40 to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 229 sets out that HMRC may, by notice, suspend the registration of a registered tax adviser if it is not satisfied that the adviser meets the registration conditions. To ensure powers and sanctions are targeted appropriately, the legislation includes robust safeguards that must be applied to any decision on whether to suspend registration, including the right to appeal to a tribunal. HMRC will suspend a tax adviser only after due process, including offering opportunities to comply and a chance for the adviser to explain whether there is a good reason why they are unable to do so. HMRC will not use these powers for minor breaches. Government amendments 16 to 19, 39 and 40 are simple amendments to correct the drafting and ensure that the legislation works as intended.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At registration, tax advisers will be asked to confirm they understand and will meet HMRC’s standards for agents. Currently, if HMRC concludes that an adviser has significantly breached the standards for agents, it can refuse to interact with that adviser. In line with that, as a result of these clauses, a serious breach would result in the adviser’s registration being suspended—that is not the case for a minor breach. As part of the registration process, HMRC will also verify that tax advisers and relevant individuals do not have any outstanding tax liabilities before permitting registration. Clause 227 sets out the process for approval of registration applications and how tax advisers will be notified. Clause 228 allows HMRC to request information from registered tax advisers to monitor their compliance with the requirements.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I respectfully disagree. The Government are not seeking to regulate tax advisers. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that we will not review the quality of advice provided, but we also will not be stepping in to certify qualifications or professional conduct more broadly. The Government have been listening to and engaging with the sector on these measures in recent months—indeed, I believe, over a long period—to make sure minimum standards are set out in the standards for agents. We want to ensure that there is a floor within the system so that agents meet minimum standards. That is important so that those who assist taxpayers with their tax affairs are themselves compliant. Clauses 224 to 226 establish registration conditions.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have come forward with a Bill that we think is proportionate and gets the balance right. I look forward to continuing to engage with the ICAEW in the months ahead.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was just enjoying leafing through the Bill. Opposition Members raise a reasonable point. I want to offer reassurance that HMRC will suspend an adviser only after due process has been followed, including offering opportunities to comply and a chance for the adviser to explain if there is a good reason why they are unable to do so. I think that is reasonable and proportionate. We also need to ensure, as I said earlier, that we have a floor in the system, so that those who do not meet the standards—and who breach them in a serious way—are unable to remain registered, and, as we shall discuss later, are not able to continue to interact with HMRC. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned the ICAEW’s views on the topic. I have been engaging with the ICAEW, and my officials have also had meetings with it over the course of many months.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All I can say to the hon. Member is that HMRC will suspend a tax adviser only after due process, including after offering opportunities to comply and a chance for the adviser to explain if there was a good reason why they were unable to do so. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, raised the point around the impact on tax advisers, and whether it would make it more expensive or burdensome for them to have to register in this way. It is worth noting that HMRC will not be charging for registration, and many tax advisers will already have an agent services account. Those that do will be moved automatically on to the new system, and will not have to re-register. HMRC will use automatic checks to ensure that the process is as quick and easy as possible for applicants.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Financial services and legal and professional services are a key part of our growth strategy and our ability to increase productivity and improve living standards for people across the country.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Minister is right to encourage the Government, HMRC and Ministers to ensure that we get our policy right, and that we do not overreach. That is why we have engaged really carefully on this matter. We published a consultation back in October 2024, where we heard from stakeholders that there was actually strong support for some form of mandatory registration, and a view that it could enhance the security of tax adviser services and deter bad actors. We published a policy paper in July 2025, which we received 40 responses to, and we have had lots of feedback from other stakeholders as well. We will keep the policy under review. I will continue to engage with the ICAEW and other important voices and actors in the sector. We want to see a thriving and growing accountancy and tax advice market in the UK.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Amendment 40, in clause 225, page 212, line 28, leave out paragraph (d).— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment omits penalties under the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes (VAT and other indirect taxes) provisions from the definition of “relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. Clause 225, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 226 to 229 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 230 Compliance notice Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 18, in clause 225, page 211, line 27, at end insert— “(da) a civil penalty (not within paragraph (d)) relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under any enactment relating to tax;”. This amendment provides that a civil penalty relating to an obligation contained in a provision made by or under a tax enactment (such as an obligation in the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes provisions) falls within the definition of “relevant amount” for the purposes of clauses 224 and 225. Amendment 19, in clause 225, page 211, line 28, leave out “(d)” and insert “(da)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18. Amendment 39, in clause 225, page 212, line 22, leave out paragraph (a).”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More broadly, it is worth noting that HMRC, alongside what is detailed in the Bill, has a public law duty to be reasonable in the way that it engages with individuals, and it will of course adhere to that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 220 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 19 agreed to. Clauses 221 to 224 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 225 Registration conditions: interpretation Amendments made: 16, in clause 225, page 211, line 24, leave out “an amount within paragraph (a) or (b)” and insert “a tax payable to HMRC or to national insurance contributions”. This amendment corrects an inconsistency. Amendment 17, in clause 225, page 211, line 26, leave out “including a relevant anti-avoidance penalty”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 18.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of my favourite things is checking and monitoring the targets that are set out for HMRC. I know that parliamentarians on both sides of the House like to write to the Minister with responsibility for HMRC to receive updates on our progress on meeting our targets. I am glad that our call wait times have decreased recently, and that we are doing more to have a higher share of digital interactions. On the shadow Minister’s point about the change coming in relatively soon, that is why it is really important to get the guidance published very soon, and I will be working with officials on that. It will be published in the coming weeks, to give advisers time to prepare.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 230 to 237 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May, as was just mentioned. The clauses set out further details of how prohibited interaction with HMRC will be treated and potential financial penalties, and include robust safeguards that must be applied to any decision. HMRC will always work with a tax adviser who is genuinely trying to comply, will never suspend a tax adviser when doing so would be unreasonable or disproportionate, and will always consider the nature of any potential breach and how a suspension would impact the tax adviser and their clients. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Minister for his questions. We will reasonably consider a whole range of points that have been raised. It is right that senior professionals who interact with HMRC on behalf of taxpayers have their own tax affairs up to date. HMRC expects that of every taxpayer. That expectation is set out in industry standards and HMRC’s standards for agents. On the point around our timelines and HMRC being prompt and efficient in its dealings—the shadow Minister raised the point around standards and responsiveness earlier—I am happy to take those points away and come back to him on if there is more detail that I can provide. Question put and agreed to. Clause 230 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 231 to 237 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 238 to 240 set out that when a person becomes liable to a penalty, HMRC must assess the penalty and notify the person. The notice will set out the details of the penalty, why they have received it and how they may appeal, ensuring that tax advisers have a clear path to compliance. Before issuing a penalty, the authorised officer must allow the person a period of 30 days to make representations to HMRC. The clauses also place limits on how long HMRC may delay before applying a penalty, so that no tax adviser will receive a penalty after an unreasonable delay. Question put and agreed to. Clause 238 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 239 and 240 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 241 Reviews and appeals Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 241 sets out the details of reviews and appeals in relation to tax adviser registration. It introduces schedule 20, which contains details of reviews and appeals. The schedule details that a person will be offered an internal review and may appeal to the tribunal for certain decisions about their registration.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The tribunal will be independent to the extent that those officers who made decisions and any determinations about the matter will not be involved in the tribunal. I think that would be right. The tribunal will include decisions of an officer of HMRC in respect of approving or suspending the person’s registration and the issuing of sanctions for prohibited interaction with HMRC. Schedule 20 also sets out how a tax adviser may seek temporary relief, which delays the application of a sanction while there is an appeal or it is subject to review. HMRC will always grant temporary relief when the suspension is just due to late tax returns or payments, and will always consider whether not granting relief would put a business at risk of failing before it had been able to appeal. I therefore commend clause 241 and schedule 20 to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have set this out, but I want to clarify that the tribunal is independent. The head of the tribunal would be an existing first-tier tax tribunal judge. As the hon. Member for Newton Abbot has particular experience and interest in this, I will write to him in more detail on the composition and independence of the tax tribunal on this important point. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked whether the Government would consider removing paragraph 6(7), and I can confirm that the Government do not intend to make that change. Question put and agreed to. Clause 241 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 20 agreed to. Clause 242 Disclosure of information Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 242 to 246 require tax advisers who interact with HMRC on behalf of a client to register with HMRC and meet minimum standards from May 2026. We have been debating a number of similar clauses, and this is the final group concerning tax adviser registration. Overall, the measures will help businesses and individuals access more reliable advice and reduce opportunities for non-compliance.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The shadow Minister is right that the tax adviser registration comes in from May this year—specifically, from 18 May 2026—but registration will be phased in over 2026-27 and tax advisers will have a minimum of three months to register. Most will have more time.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The registration will be phased in during 2026-27. Tax advisers will not have to register immediately on 18 May 2026; it will be from then. Question put and agreed to. Clause 242 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 243 to 246 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 247 Conduct of tax advisers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Taxpayers will be made aware of which advisers face restrictions when interacting with HMRC, which will help to increase transparency and trust. It will also act as a deterrent against poor behaviour by tax advisers. I thank all the stakeholders from the tax profession who have engaged with us closely on this matter in recent months—it is greatly appreciated.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is the result of a drafting oversight, which this amendment will correct. I will now turn to clauses 248 to 250, which introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest do so. The changes made by these clauses provide HMRC with a lawful basis for publishing the details of tax advisers who have been sanctioned for conduct-related reasons. They are in addition to the publication power in clause 247, which requires information about financial penalties to be published. Additionally, the new publication power will enable taxpayers to make more informed choices when selecting a tax adviser to represent them.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where HMRC have reasonable grounds to suspect a tax adviser has intentionally sought to cause a tax loss, the clause gives HMRC the power to gather information about the tax adviser’s advice to their clients. Amendment 25 is a simple amendment to correct an error in the drafting and to ensure the legislation works as intended. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 include expanding the definition of “tax adviser” in schedule 38 to cover not only individuals but companies as well. This reflects the nature of the tax-advice market in 2026. The expanded definition is achieved by replacing references to an “individual” in schedule 38 with references to a “person”. However, there is only one reference to an “individual” in schedule 38, which the Bill, as drafted, does not change.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Importantly, the powers will apply only to tax advisers who act with the intention of bringing about a loss of tax revenue, such as those who knowingly claim a tax repayment for a client who is not entitled to it or advise a client to deliberately enter incorrect figures on a tax return. This is, rightly, still a high threshold. The powers will not affect advisers who act in good faith, or who take a credible view as to what the law requires of their clients, including where they use extra-statutory concessions or HMRC guidance to form that view. They also do not affect advisers who make mistakes while trying, as the vast majority do, to do the right thing.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“HMRC needs stronger and more effective powers to crack down on the small minority of bad tax advisers who cause such harm to the tax system. The changes made by clause 247 and schedule 21 will give HMRC those stronger powers. They impose a more effective regime for HMRC to gather information from tax advisers suspected of wrongdoing and to issue penalties where appropriate. At the same time—and I know hon. Members take an interest in this—there are robust safeguards, including appeal rights, and they are being maintained to ensure the powers are applied fairly and proportionately.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clauses 247 to 250 and schedule 21 make changes that will ensure that HMRC can take effective action against tax advisers who intentionally seek to facilitate non-compliance in the tax affairs of their clients. The clauses also introduce a new power to allow HMRC to publish details of tax advisers who have been suspended or barred by HMRC from acting for clients where it is in the public interest to do so. Clause 247 makes amendments to schedule 38 to the Finance Act 2012, which introduced powers for HMRC to gather information and sanction dishonest tax advisers. It is the Government’s view that those powers need to be strengthened. For example, the maximum penalty amount of £50,000 is a poor deterrent for rogue advisers who intentionally facilitate millions of pounds of tax loss.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“All of the people working in the sector support growth and productivity and the good functioning of the UK economy, and I commend them for it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 247 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill . Schedule 21 Conduct of tax advisers Amendment made: 25, in schedule 21, page 514, line 38, at end insert— “(aa) in sub-paragraph (3), for ‘individual’ substitute ‘person’;”.— (Dan Tomlinson.) This amendment corrects a missed consequential amendment. Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to . Clauses 248 to 250 ordered to stand part of the Bill . Clause 251 Fiscal mandate assessments prepared by the Office for Budget Responsibility Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Newton Abbot about in due course. The shadow City Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, asked about the engagement that we had before the Budget. We have had engagement with the ICAEW and others, at official and ministerial levels, on these clauses and others that we have been debating over the last half an hour or so. I will continue to engage with those stakeholders, which are an important part of the tax and advice ecosystem and provide strong representation on behalf of their members. As I have already said, I thank them and their members for their work in supporting people to get their tax right and to comply with the tax code, which, as the hon. Member mentioned earlier, is on the long side. The Government will keep doing all they can to simplify and improve our tax code.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The difference between sanctionable conduct and dishonest conduct is an important question. The Bill updates the definition of the conduct that is in scope of these powers, and I think it does so in a way that provides more certainty and clarity, because instead of having to prove dishonesty, which is challenging, HMRC will now simply need to demonstrate—granted, it is not simple to do so—that an adviser has acted with the intention to cause a tax loss. The Government believe that the change will make the powers more straightforward to use, while still ensuring that they are targeted only at bad actors. Objective dishonesty is quite challenging to prove. It is worth repeating that any penalties issued by HMRC will always be appealable to the independent tax tribunal, which I look forward to writing to the hon.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unlike other parts of the UK, there is currently no external, independent oversight of HMRC enforcement activities in Northern Ireland; the clause will accordingly change that. Clause 276 repeals section 25 of the Finance Act 1925, which taxed the trading income of overseas dominion Governments and is now obsolete. Clause 277 provides for the repeal of further obsolete provisions and corrects wrong cross-references. Finally, clause 278 sets out the legal interpretation and clause 279 sets out the Bill’s legal short title in the usual manner. I commend clauses 274 to 279 to the Committee.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The changes made by clause 274 will allow regulations to be made that enable the testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge as part of the ongoing work to modernise the stamp taxes on shares framework. The regulations will allow returns involved in the testing to be self-assessed and digitally reported to HMRC. This change will affect only those involved in the buying and selling of securities who accept an invitation to be part of the testing process. Clause 275 enables HMRC to enter into an agreement with the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to provide independent oversight of enforcement activities of HMRC officers within Northern Ireland in relation to tax.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 274 gives the Government the power to make regulations to enable testing of a new digital service for the securities transfer charge. As part of the changes under the stamp taxes on shares modernisation project, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax will be replaced by the securities transfer charge. This will change stamp duty from being a manually reported and processed HMRC-assessed tax, to a self-assessed and digitally reported tax. HMRC is developing a new digital service for the securities transfer charge, which will reduce processing times from around three weeks, as is currently the case, to near real time. To ensure that the new digital service functions as intended it will need to be tested.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New Clause 2 Report on the impact of section 28 “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before the House of Commons a report on the impact of implementation of the provisions of section 28 on— (a) business investment levels, (b) capital-intensive sector employment, (c) the manufacturing sector, (d) small and medium-sized enterprises, and (e) the public finances.”— (James Wild.) This new clause would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to the House on the impact of section 28 on business investment, employment in capital-intensive sectors, the manufacturing sector, small and medium-sized enterprises and the public finances. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put , That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement during this process. I look forward to discussing further provisions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 274 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause s 275 to 279 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government recognise that it is vital to understand how tax measures impact businesses. We publish tax information and impact notes, which set out the impacts on the Exchequer, individuals, households, businesses and civil society organisations, looking particularly at the administrative and compliance burdens. We will continue to monitor this closely; we keep all of our tax policies under review. Given the existing processes and publications, the Government’s view is that these new clauses would largely duplicate work that is already undertaken and add unnecessary reporting burdens and costs. New clauses 33 and 35 should therefore be rejected as they are not needed to ensure a proper assessment of the impacts on businesses.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I fully recognise the intention behind these proposals. Members on both sides of the Committee are rightly focused on how tax changes affect businesses of all sizes, across the economy and across the country. We need to make sure that we provide certainty and stability for businesses, which is what we are doing with our corporate tax road map. As the shadow Exchequer Secretary foreshadowed, however, we also need to make sure that we can raise revenue in a sustainable way to fund our public services, get borrowing down—as we do every year in this forecast—and make sure that the Government can hit our fiscal rules. As a result of some of the measures in the Bill, we intend on doing that with a headroom that is more than double what it was at the 2024 Budget.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of the challenges here is that asking the Opposition to scrutinise the Government’s record on living standards is like asking the thief to scrutinise the workings of the CCTV—it does not make any sense. Their record was appalling: under the previous Government, we saw the deepest squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record, with living standards actually falling on their watch. We are seeing living standards rise in this Parliament. In the first year of this Government, wages increased faster than they did in the whole first 10 years under the Conservatives. We are seeing interest rates fall, because of the stability that this Bill and others have brought back to the economy, and we are making sure we get borrowing on a downward trajectory. The Government also publish distributional analysis—alongside their infamous TIINs.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let us be really clear: in this Parliament, we are going to see living standards rise, and we are going to do all we can to beat the forecast that the OBR set out. We beat the economic growth forecast last year by 50%. We know the record of the Conservative party: when it was in power, living standards fell over five years—the worst squeeze on living standards of any Parliament on record.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a Bill that helps the Government to make progress with their priorities in the funding of public services, which is something that the Government were elected to do after public services were left in a state of disrepair in many ways at early 2024. We are making progress with things like waiting lists falling, and we are continuing to invest in our schools and our police. Rather than being distracted by update clauses—such updates would be required under the new clause—when we already have the tax information and impact notes, this Government will get on with the job of turning our country around for the good of the British people.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A sum for the combined impact of the changes across the TIINs is not at my disposal, but I may have a look and seek out the shadow Exchequer Secretary to pass on such a figure in the voting Lobby—or, as I do not expect that we will be in the same voting Lobby any time soon, adjacent to the voting Lobby. To wrap up, as well as thanking Opposition spokespeople, let me thank all members of the Bill Committee as we come to an end. I thank them for their engagement and for saving me at various moments, when I seemed to lose the ability to speak, as all I could see was a vision of me and the shadow Minister on a bumper car on Valentine’s day. This is a significant Bill.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, for his engagement and diligence throughout the Committee’s six sittings in scrutinising the Government on this topic, and a whole range of others. I also thank the shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, for doing the same. We have referred on a number of occasions to the tax information and impact notes. I do not know whether hon. Members have read any of those yet, but I signed every single one off in advance of the Budget, in one of the highlights of my professional career. I can let the Committee know that if TIINs do one thing, it is to detail the additional administrative burden and the costs—not the direct costs, but the indirect ones—associated with tax changes.”
House of Commons3 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The higher multiplier will be only 2.8% above the national standard multiplier, meaning that properties in its scope will pay a reasonable tax rate too. These new rates will be worth almost £1 billion a year and will benefit more than 750,000 RHL properties. They will mean that from April, the most valuable properties, such as large distribution warehouses occupied by online giants, will pay a tax rate 33% higher than that for small high street properties. The new business rates multipliers being brought into force by these statutory instruments are the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I commend them to the Committee—and forgive me, Mr Mundell.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the Budget we announced a comprehensive set of reforms to business rates. We have created a new, fairer system with permanently lower multipliers for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. The scope of these new multipliers is broadly the same as that of the current RHL relief. These new multipliers will be 5p below their national equivalents, but when combined with the outcomes of the revaluation, the tax rate that RHL properties on the small business multiplier pay next year will fall by nearly 12p and the rate for RHL properties on the standards multiplier by 12.5p. It is important that we make support for the high street sustainable, so we are funding these new multipliers through higher rates on the top 1% of properties—those with rateable values of £500,000 and above.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The regulations prescribe the circumstances in which the new retail, hospitality and leisure and high value business rates multipliers will apply. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—[Hon. Members: “No!”] No? Oh, that is totally wrong; who have we got in the Chair? [Hon. Members: “Mr Mundell.”] Mr Mundell—that’s right. Forgive me for my sins; I know not what I do. Members will be glad to know that I do not plan on speaking for 15 minutes today, as I did in the Chamber the other day. The regulations give effect to the new business rates multipliers for qualifying retail, hospitality and leisure and high-value properties. This is the first step to creating a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the Budget, we published a call for evidence on how to remove further barriers to investment. Transforming business rates is a multi-year process. The Government remain firmly committed to collaborating with stakeholders and with businesses small and large to achieve further meaningful change in the business rates system. Question put and agreed to. Draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Calculation of Non-Domestic Rating High-Value Multiplier) (England) Regulations 2026.— (Dan Tomlinson.)”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the shadow Minister will not concede that his Government would have got rid of the reliefs overnight, he seems to be suggesting that there was a multibillion-pound unfunded tax cut that they did not tell us about before the election. I am not sure which he would prefer. In advance of the Budget, we considered the inclusion of large retail stores within the high-value multiplier. It is really encouraging that Sainsbury’s, the Co-op, Iceland and other large retailers have welcomed our getting the balance right in the business rates system and setting the multiplier at a rate that has allowed some shops to reduce prices, or at least hold down price increases for consumers, because of the changes that we made and the proportionate way in which we went about making them. We are committed to going further to reform the business rates system.”
House of Commons2 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗